Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Wesley Morgan, Research Fellow, Griffith Asia Institute, Griffith University

Without funding from Japan, many of Australia’s gas projects wouldn’t have gone ahead. Massive public loans from Japanese taxpayers are propping up Australia’s now-enormous fossil gas industry. Japan is also becoming a major gas trader and today exports more gas to other countries than it imports from Australia.

Even as the world rapidly shifts to a clean energy future, Japan is emerging as a fossil fuel holdout. The world’s fourth biggest economy, Japan has long been dependent on foreign sources of fossil fuels. Even as China has filled its deserts with solar farms, Japan has focused on gas.

These projects make it harder for Australia to achieve its climate goals and undermine the shift to clean energy industries. New gas projects threaten to divert workforce and investment away from these export industries.

But this can change. As Australia spends big on green power, green manufacturing and green exports – as part of the government’s Future Made in Australia policies – the enduring partnership between the two nations could go green.

Developing new clean energy partnerships with energy-hungry Asian nations such as Japan, China and South Korea could boost climate cooperation, grow new clean energy exports and promote investment.

Japanese funding, Australian gas

Worried about energy security, Japan is subsidising new offshore gas projects in Australia which probably wouldn’t go ahead otherwise.

Japan is the world’s largest provider of international public finance for gas production. While other nations – including Australia – have pledged to end international finance for fossil fuels, Japan has kept the money flowing.

For example, last month, the Japan Bank for International Cooperation provided Australia’s biggest gas corporation, Woodside, with A$1.5 billion in loans to develop the Scarborough gas field offshore from Western Australia. Japanese power utility JERA also received $1.2billion from the Japanese bank to acquire a 15% stake in the project, gaining rights to a share of the liquefied natural gas (LNG) produced.

Without this kind of financial support, new gas projects would be less likely to proceed.

It is not certain other funders would step in. Gas production in Australia is relatively expensive, due to remote locations and high operating costs. Over the past decade, Australian gas projects have typically been delivered late and over budget and have delivered poor returns for investors.

In the years ahead, Australian gas projects will struggle to deliver gas at internationally competitive prices. In 2022, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine triggered a surge in demand for LNG. Now, the world is facing a massive oversupply of gas.

In two years time, large new LNG volumes will come online from lower-cost producers in the Middle East – mainly Qatar – and in North America, just as demand for gas falls in key markets. The Australian government’s own analysis projects a much lower price of LNG from these producers than the cost of production in Australia.

If we left it up to the market, Australia’s increasingly uncompetitive gas exports would lose market share. But it’s not being left up to the market. Japan is underwriting new gas projects to make money-losing projects seem viable. And that makes it much harder for Australia to shift to a lucrative green economy.

Tokyo’s neon lights will keep glowing

Last year, Japanese ambassador Yamagami Shingo claimed Australian gas exports were crucial to keeping the neon lights of Tokyo glowing.

In reality, Japan is now reselling more LNG to other Asian nations than it imports from Australia. Japanese gas corporations are contracted to buy more gas over the next decade than Japan will use at home, and are planning to sell excess gas in other markets in Asia.

This is a direct result of official policy, which aims to create new demand for gas in Southeast Asia by offering financial support for gas import terminals and gas-fired power plants and supporting Japanese corporations to supply that demand.

This is not hidden. It’s an open goal. By 2030, the Japanese government wants its corporations to “handle” 100 million tonnes of LNG each year – far more than Japan will use to meet its own energy needs.

Why? Japan’s government sees maintaining influence in the region’s LNG market as important to its own energy security.

Renewables offer Japan true energy security

The gas industry has tried to brand gas as cleaner than coal or a transition fuel. In reality, gas is a dangerous fossil fuel. It’s largely methane, 80 times more potent in heating the planet than carbon dioxide. Methane has added almost a third (30%) of the extra heat building up since the industrial revolution.

Woodside chief Meg O’Neill claims Australian gas exports “can help Asia to decarbonise by replacing coal”. But gas can be just as polluting as coal. Methane leaks are very common across the gas supply chain. You only need a very low amount of leakage for gas to be on par with coal for pollution.

While Japan buys and resells Australian gas, it’s own power grid is greening. The government now plans to double the role of renewables – rising from 18% of power generation in 2019 to 37% by 2030 – while gas-fired power shrinks.

Japan’s demand for gas at home is already falling. It fell 18% in the decade to 2022. In 2023 alone, demand for gas fell by 8%.

Shifting to renewables even faster would improve Japan’s energy security by reducing dependence on imported gas. Recent analysis suggests Japan could achieve a 90% clean energy system by 2035.

Without Japanese funds, Australian gas would be dwindling

In the five years to 2017, Australia’s gas industry grew enormously. By 2019 Australia became the world’s largest LNG exporter. Analysis from the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis points out this is remarkable given how remote and relatively small Australia’s gas reserves are.

International subsidies – including Japan’s largesse – helped turn Australia into a fossil fuel giant. But these subsidies will not serve our interests long term. Continuing to allow subsidised investment in new gas projects diverts investment, workforce, and supply-chain capacity away from the green industries the government wants to grow for the future.

This doesn’t mean turning our back on Japan. Japan has a huge need for energy. But it can get it without resorting to fossil fuels. Japan could partner with Australia to supply critical minerals and green metals for batteries and renewables, green ammonia for fertilisers and industry, and green hydrogen for transport and industry.

Acknowledgements: Ben McLeod (Quantitative analyst, Climate Council) and Josh Runciman (Lead analyst, Australian Gas, IEEFA) provided data used in the article.

Wesley Morgan is a Senior Researcher with the Climate Council of Australia.

– ref. Climate holdout Japan drove Australia’s LNG boom. Could the partnership go green? – https://theconversation.com/climate-holdout-japan-drove-australias-lng-boom-could-the-partnership-go-green-231816

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Dr Nicole Shackleton, Lecturer, Graduate School of Business and Law, RMIT University

In May, the federal government confirmed it’s working on new laws to prohibit hate speech, sometimes called vilification, based on sex, gender, sexuality, race or religion.

Many have welcomed the plan to introduce stronger laws as needed to tackle hate speech against Jewish, Palestinian and Muslim communities in the wake of growing antisemitism and Islamophobia in Australia.

Many people agree freedom of speech has its limits and the law has some role to play in prohibiting harmful speech. But what should these laws look like? Here are four things that should be addressed in the legislation.

1. Protection for specific attributes

Generally, hate speech can be seen as harmful speech or behaviour that attacks a person or a community simply because of who they are. People are targeted because of unchangeable characteristics such as their gender or sex, their sexuality, their race or religion, or whether they have a disability or HIV. Research by the eSafety Commissioner has found hate speech based on these characteristics is growing, particularly online.

Hate speech doesn’t occur in isolation. It’s connected to societal and political treatment of marginalised communities. As hate speech increases, so does discrimination and violence against vulnerable groups.

For example, my research established women are often targeted by hate speech. One participant spoke about receiving messages describing sexually assaulting her in graphic detail. Gendered hate speech, like this example, is used to harass women and silence their voices in public spaces. Hate speech against women is also known to contribute to violence against women.

This is why new laws need to prohibit hate speech against many different attributes and not just focus on one community.

2. Protection for multiple risk factors

When someone uses hate speech to abuse a person or a group of people, often they are not only attacking them because of one characteristic, but because they cross over multiple characteristics. This is known as “intersectionality”, a concept first created by Professor Kimberlé Crenshaw. It argues people who have multiple attributes often experience discrimination and violence more often and more severely.

These experiences extend to hate speech. The eSafety Commissioner has found LGBTIQ+ or First Nations people experienced online hate speech at double the national average. LGBTIQ+ women are significantly more likely than heterosexual cisgender women to experience online gender and sexuality-based harassment. Women of colour are also more likely to be targeted by anonymous users online.

In my research, a participant spoke about her experiences of hate speech as a Muslim woman:

I happen to be brown and Muslim. So, a minority within a minority within a minority […] Sometimes it’s really difficult to extract the gendered side of it from the other dimensions of it, the racist, xenophobic side […] they are intertwined. Like when I get told, “Get back in the kitchen and make me a ham sandwich”.

This is why the law needs to prohibit hate speech that occurs because of “one or more” protected attributes.

3. Criminal and civil penalties

The federal government’s announcement indicates new laws prohibiting hate speech will include criminal – not civil – penalties. These new laws would only target deliberate acts that seek to incite violence or cause harm. New criminal laws will send a strong message to the community that hate speech is unacceptable.

However, the track record for prosecution of criminal hate speech laws is not strong. In Victoria it took almost two decades before anyone was prosecuted for serious vilification under the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act.

Changes to current sedition laws in the Commonwealth criminal code, which is a possibility suggested by some commentators, are also unlikely to lead to better results for communities targeted by hate speech. Rather, such changes are more likely to confuse the issue as these laws were originally introduced to target terrorism.

To make sure hate speech laws are effective, civil penalties are also needed. Civil laws exist at a federal level prohibiting race-based hate speech and these laws allow for victims to make complaints and engage in mediation. These laws are “harm-based”, meaning they capture conduct that causes harm to the victim, rather than criminal laws which are focused on incitement of violence. These laws also take into account the perspective of the target when considering whether material or behaviour amounts to hate speech.

New laws to prohibit hate speech need to include such harm-based civil laws, which will cover more conduct and put the power in the hands of the victims to make complaints.

4. Protection against backlash

As with any attempt to limit speech, even when it causes harm, there is a chance of community and political backlash against these laws and complaints made by victims. Such backlash can result in hate speech laws being enforced in troubling or harmful ways.

These laws may be weaponised against the very communities they are designed to protect. There have been cases where complaints of hate speech have been made specifically to undermine legal protections. In 2016, former Senator David Leyonhjelm made a complaint of racial vilification to the Human Rights Commission as part of his ongoing attack on part of the Racial Discrimination Act.

Protecting against backlash is difficult and requires the government to think carefully about how laws are designed. The purpose of new hate speech laws – to protect marginalised communities – must be clearly set out and understood by those tasked with enforcement.

It is also important the public is educated about why some limitation of speech is necessary when it causes harm to marginalised communities. Robust protection for legitimate speech, such as conduct that is reasonable and done for genuine academic, artistic, religious or scientific purpose or is a fair and accurate report of something in the public interest, must also be included in any new laws.

Creating effective and robust laws to prohibit hate speech at the federal level may be challenging but given what’s at stake, it’s worth getting it right.

Dr Nicole Shackleton does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. The government is drafting anti-hate speech laws. Here are 4 things they should include – https://theconversation.com/the-government-is-drafting-anti-hate-speech-laws-here-are-4-things-they-should-include-231178

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Hannah Mason, Research assistant in Public Health, Medical, and Veterinary Sciences, James Cook University

Attending outdoor sporting events can be life-threatening. Amid soaring temperatures, event organisers need to take extra care – not just for athletes, but also for officials, spectators and volunteers.

The consequences of extreme heat exposure range from dehydration to heatstroke and even death. National Rugby League player Keith Titmuss died in 2020 due to “exertional heat stroke” following an excessive pre-season training session. Scorching temperatures also disrupted the 2019 Australian Open and wreaked havoc during the 2023 Sydney Marathon.

In Paris, the 2024 Summer Olympics will proceed with no air conditioning in the athlete’s village. To reduce greenhouse gas emissions, organisers chose alternative cooling measures such as insulation, double-glazing, fans and pumping cool water through the floor. Unconvinced, the Australian Olympic Committee is buying portable air con units just in case. Athletes from poorer nations are expected to just keep their curtains shut.

In the lead-up to the Brisbane 2032 Summer Olympics and other major sporting events in Queensland, the state government wants to prepare for extreme heat.
Our new research explores this health hazard, the strategies recommended to reduce heat exposure at sporting events, and who is responsible for ensuring these strategies are put in place. Here we offer practical tips for all involved. We’re going to need them more than ever as the world warms.

What we did and what we found

We conducted an international review of research published between 2010 and 2023 to determine the current state of knowledge in this area.

Our systematic approach honed in on 40 peer-reviewed articles about heat at major sporting events. These were events held in large venues that attracted local, domestic and international spectators. The recommendations fell into six themes: planning, mitigation strategies, medical, policy, education and research.

A consistent pattern of heat-related challenges emerged. The rate of heat-related illness increased along with the temperature. Certain groups of people were more vulnerable to heat. Athletes participating in endurance events such as long-distance running were at higher risk than those participating in short-duration sports involving throwing (javelin, discus) or jumping (high jump, long jump). The diverse needs of those with multiple medical conditions and differing abilities including Paralympic athletes also warrant special consideration.

We found the significant health risks of heat should be considered before, during and after major sporting events. Individuals, coaches, officials and organisers all have a role to play.

Our findings can inform evidence-based strategies to protect the health of those attending and competing in such events now and into the future.

It’s not just about athletes

While athletes may have prepared to compete in hot conditions, using technology such as cooling vests or cold-water immersion, spectators are less likely to deliberately prepare their bodies for extreme temperatures. But there are plenty of things we can all do.

We can drink plenty of fluids, seek shade and use sun protection. Ideally, venue management will have provided access to drinking water, shady spaces and cooling (misters, fans or air conditioning). All requires careful planning and thoughtful construction.

Organisers need to decide what time to run each event, what temperatures will trigger heat policies (such as pushing events to a cooler time slot), whether rules need to be changed in the event of extreme heat (such as more or earlier break times), and what measures need to be in place to protect officials, spectators and volunteers.

Top tips for spectators

Here are some practical tips you can use to reduce heat-related risks when extreme heat strikes:

1. think about where your seat is located and whether there will be any shade, or whether you will be directly exposed to the elements

2. find out whether you can come and go, or attend the event later in the day – where possible, avoid events timed for the hottest part of the day

3. wear light-coloured, loose-fitting clothes and a hat

4. see if you can bring your own water bottle into the event and refill it, and make sure you are well hydrated before, during and after the event

5. avoid caffeine and alcohol as these drinks can make your more dehydrated

6. check what event organisers have planned for extreme weather such as heatwaves.

A warning to event organisers

A great deal has changed since Australia hosted the Sydney Olympics at the turn of the century.

There are no excuses in 2024. All sports and sporting events should have a heat policy that addresses players, spectators and officials. Sports Medicine Australia’s Extreme Heat Policy is a good example.

For major sporting events, engaging with health services should be part of the planning process. Then they can prepare for the possibility of multiple people presenting with heat stroke.

At the event, medical teams should be skilled in recognising the warning signs of heat related illness, as well as diagnosis and treatment.

With extreme heat events becoming more common worldwide, sporting bodies must be prepared to alter scheduled events (including the time, location, scheduled breaks, and so on) as required.

Let’s ensure outdoor sporting events can continue in a warming climate.

By working together, we can provide safer, more enjoyable experiences for all involved.

Hannah Mason receives funding from the Queensland Department of Environment, Science and Innovation, and Queensland Fire and Emergency Services.

Amy Peden is an honorary Senior Research Fellow with Royal Life Saving Society – Australia and is the co-founder of the UNSW Beach Safety Research Group. She receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council.

Anthony Leicht receives funding from the Australian Department of Defence.

Jemma King receives funding from the Queensland Department of Environment, Science and Innovation. She is affiliated with the Australian Health Promotion Association as she holds an executive position with the Queensland Branch.

Richard Franklin receives funding from the Queensland Department of Environment, Science and Innovation, and Queensland Fire and Emergency Services. He is the President of Kidsafe Australia and the incoming President of the Australasian College of Tropical Medicine. He is a board member of the Royal Life Saving Society – Australia, Farmsafe Australia, and Auschem and a member of the World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine, the Public Health Association of Australia, the International Society of Agricultural Safety and Health, and the Australasian Epidemiological Association.

– ref. Extreme heat is a killer for outdoor sporting events – let’s plan properly to keep everyone safe – https://theconversation.com/extreme-heat-is-a-killer-for-outdoor-sporting-events-lets-plan-properly-to-keep-everyone-safe-229998

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Chris Zomer, Associate Research Fellow at the Centre of the Digital Child, Deakin University

There is increasing concern children are less focused in school. This is often blamed on smartphones and social media.

At the same time, there is significant pressure on schools to deliver academic results, with students’ performance on some major standarised tests dropping.

“Edtech” (education technology) companies are offering a potential solution to schools through engagement data. These data measure students’ engagement automatically and in real time.

As my new journal article explores, measuring engagement through digital programs may sound like a good idea, but we need to have a much clearer understanding of what these data are actually measuring and what kind of engagement they are promoting.

What is engagement technology?

Students in schools and universities will be familiar with “online learning platforms”. These are online spaces where learning content and resources are contained. It could be for any subject and for learning students need to do in class or at home.

“Engagement data” describes any sort of measurement on how students use these platforms (rather than results or learning). Teachers can then see their students’ data via dashboards.

Currently, engagement data are more common in tertiary education, where systems such as Moodle and Brightspace are used to deliver online content. These platforms often use a variety of metrics such as contributions to discussion forums, number of pages viewed, and assignments submitted.

But engagement data are also finding their way into schools. For example, Education Perfect is used by more than 2,000 schools throughout Australia. It offers online learning content from Year 5 to Year 12 for a range of different subjects.

At the same time it provides analytics on students’ engagement, including the time students have spent on activities and the total number of activities they have completed. It also shows the last time a student logged in.

The online library app Epic is mostly used in primary schools. It keeps track of how much time students have spent reading and how many books they have “finished”.

Academic theories of engagement

Through engagement data, online learning platforms promote the idea engagement is measurable and can be expressed in numbers and graphs.

This may fit with some teachers’ understanding of engagement as students being “on task”. But it is a very limited idea compared to most academic theories of engagement used by education researchers today.

Many of these theories link engagement to feelings and attitudes towards learning, rather than just time spent doing this or that.

For example, do students feel school is actually a place where they belong? Do students feel motivated to persevere when things are difficult? Do they feel like there is a point to what they are learning?

What is engagement data measuring?

We also have to question whether engagement data are measuring what digital platforms claim to measure. Platforms may measure the time a student is logged into a specific part of the platform, but not necessarily the time a student is actually involved in a learning task.

For example, students could have a task window open and not do the task, yet the clock keeps ticking, increasing the time they apparently spent on the platform.

Task completion might be a more valid way of measuring engagement, but the mere completion of tasks is also a very narrow conception of engagement. It measures quantity of learning but not necessarily quality.

Is this data useful?

It is also not clear why teachers need information on page views and the number of times a student has logged in.

From a teacher’s perspective, it might be useful to know if a student has not been active at all on the platform. But it could be argued knowing a student has logged in on Friday evening at 9.32pm is unnecessary surveillance.

Some of these measurements are also quite common on social media platforms where companies aim to quantify user engagement. Social media giants such as Meta use metrics such as page views to calculate the value of online content, which can then be sold to advertisers.

We need to guard against viewing students simply as “users” of a product, rather than as students who need to learn and grow.

Biometric data can also be measured

While it is not a feature in Australian schools, online learning platforms may use biometic data to measure students’ engagement.

This involves using headsets or cameras to track students’ brainwaves or eye movements to see if they are paying attention. Experiments with these technologies have been conducted in Chinese schools.

While this may seem far-fetched, influential organisations such as the OECD have begun seriously considering the benefits or “promising paths” of this technology.

How are engagement data used?

We now need more research to understand the extent to which teachers and schools are using these data and why. We also need to be asking whether this is useful information to collect at all.

Anecdotally, there is some pressure on teachers to use it. While working as a high school teacher in 2021, a senior teacher advised me to show parents engagement data in parent-teacher interviews. If a parent was upset about their child’s results, showing them how little time a student was putting into their online learning seemed an easy way to rebut any criticism of my teaching, “blaming” the student for their disengagement.

However this approach avoids any discussion about the real problem. This is not the lack of time a student spends on the learning platform, but why a student is not motivated or why the lessons are not working for them.

The task of defining student engagement should be up to educators and scholars, rather than edtech companies. Just because something is easily measurable does not mean this information is valuable or necessary.

Chris Zomer does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Some online platforms are starting to measure ‘student engagement’ at school. Here’s what you need to know – https://theconversation.com/some-online-platforms-are-starting-to-measure-student-engagement-at-school-heres-what-you-need-to-know-231918

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Claudia Rozas, Lecturer, Faculty of Education and Social Work, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau

For the second time in as many years, New Zealand’s secondary school English curriculum will be rewritten, a move which has generated disquiet from teachers and academics alike.

The revised year 7-13 English curriculum, to be released in July, is expected to include compulsory Shakespeare and grammar lessons, as well as a recommended reading list ranging from contemporary New Zealand authors to Chaucer and Beowulf.

Supporters say these changes will establish a “knowledge-rich” curriculum with a set of recommended texts. Currently, individual teachers have the autonomy to select what is taught in their classrooms.

But others have expressed concern about a seemingly secretive process. The New Zealand Association of Teachers of English, for example, learned of the curriculum changes from the media.

Teachers are also concerned about the emphasis on traditional literary texts, such as Shakespeare and other works. They worry many students might find these works inaccessible. As parents and teachers await the draft curriculum, it is worth considering what is changing and why.

A curriculum without content

The international push to develop knowledge economies over the past three decades has led to demands for “competency-based” education organised around achievement objectives.

For teachers this has meant outcomes-driven teaching, including planing their lessons around the knowledge and skills students are expected to have at the end of each unit. For students it has meant becoming “self-managing” learners who play an active role in setting the course of their education.

The principles of competency-based education are present in New Zealand’s national curriculum (which describes itself as a “framework rather than a detailed plan”, and national qualification standards (NCEA), which compartmentalise knowledge into separate achievement standards.

This does not mean there has been no literature in classrooms. But there has been a higher degree of curriculum variability between schools, as well as content driven by student interest rather than disciplinary merit. A pick-and-choose assessment framework has become the default curriculum for the final three years of secondary school.

Moving towards a knowledge-rich curriculum

Part of a wider international movement, a knowledge-rich curriculum seeks to infuse the “breadth and depth” of disciplinary knowledge into school subjects.

This approach differs from the changes made in 2023, which focused on “giving practical effect” to Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Under the 2023 changes, schools had to ensure the curriculum reflected local tikanga Māori (Māori customary practices or behaviours), mātauranga Māori (Māori knowledge) and te ao Māori (the Māori world).

The current rewrite will likely be informed by the curriculum design coherence model – a tool designed to link content with concepts and to make the internal logic of subjects visible.

How this will play out in an English curriculum remains to be seen. So far, it seems literary, popular and traditional texts will be categorised into year levels on recommended reading lists. Grammar will be prescribed from year 7 to year 13.

Culture, knowledge and secondary school English

The rewrite’s emphasis on a knowledge-rich curriculum raises questions about the balance between school-subject knowledge and the knowledge young people bring from home.

When the plans for the curriculum rewrite were revealed, one working group member told media:

Every child throughout the country has the right to the very best English language and literature.

But while all students should have access to the same high-quality texts, access in itself doesn’t address inequality across our education system.

Research clearly shows not all students have the same opportunities to fully engage with rich and complex content in secondary English classrooms. Providing access to certain knowledge is only one aspect of addressing educational disparities.

A wider conversation about English

Both the 2023 English refresh and the current rewrite are attempts to recalibrate the effects of New Zealand’s devolved curriculum. To achieve this, both rewrites have sought to identify and protect what the authors believe to be the knowledge that matters.

But culture cannot be prised from the curriculum. The working group needs to produce an English curriculum in keeping with Aotearoa New Zealand’s bicultural foundation and contemporary society.

English’s long history is more nuanced than a binary traditional versus progressive description. Now is a good time to clarify which models of English are most desirable to New Zealand as a country, and why.

There also needs to be a nationwide conversation about what a literary canon could look like for our country. How might recommended reading lists be curated to ensure all students have access to a broad range of traditional and contemporary literature?

The changes to secondary school English over the past two years are manifestations of enduring questions about the purposes of curriculum and the cultural artefacts that bring a subject like English to life. Now is a good opportunity to tackle these questions.

Claudia Rozas does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Shakespeare, Beowulf and Chaucer could be back in the NZ English curriculum – should they be? – https://theconversation.com/shakespeare-beowulf-and-chaucer-could-be-back-in-the-nz-english-curriculum-should-they-be-231817

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alexander Crooke, Postdoctoral Research Fellow in Music Therapy, The University of Melbourne

Recently we have seen the launch of artificial intelligence programs such as SOUNDRAW and Loudly that can create musical compositions in the style of almost any artist.

We’re also seeing big stars use AI in their own work, including to replicate others’ voices. Drake, for instance, landed in hot water in April after he released a diss track that used AI to mimic the voice of late rapper Tupac Shakur. And with the new ChatGPT model, GPT-4o, things are set to reach a whole new level. Fast.

So is human-made music doomed?

While it’s true AI will likely disrupt the music industry and even transform how we engage with music, there are some good reasons to suggest human music-making isn’t going anywhere.

Technology and music have a long history

One could argue AI is essentially a tool aimed at making our lives easier. Humans been been crafting such tools for a long time, both in music and nearly every other domain.

We’ve been using technology to play music since the invention of the gramophone. And arguments about human musicians versus machines are at least as old as the self-playing piano, which came into use in the early 20th century.

More recently, sampling, DJ-ing, autotune technology and AI-based mastering and production software have continued to fan debates over artistic originality.

But the new AI developments are different. Anyone can create a new track in any existing genre, with mininal effort. They can add instruments, change the music’s “vibe” and even choose a virtual singer to sing their lyrics.

Given the industry’s longstanding exploitation of artists – particularly with the rise of streaming (and Spotify’s chief executive claiming music is almost free to create) – its easy to see why the latest developments in AI are frightening some musicians.

Music is a very human thing

At the same time, these developments offer an opportunity to reflect on why people make music in the first place. We have long used music to tell our stories, to express ourselves and our humanity. These stories teach us, heal us, energise us and help shape our identities.

Can AI music do this? Maybe. But it’s unlikely to be able to speak to the human experience in the same way a human can – partly because it doesn’t understand it the way we do.

It’s also unlikely to be able to create new works outside of existing musical paradigms, as it relies on algorithms taking from existing material. So we’ll likely still need our imaginations to create new musical ideas.

It also helps to note that music being controlled by “algorithms” actually isn’t a new concept. Mainstream pop artists have long had their music written for them by industry “hit makers” who use specific formulas.

It’s usually the musicians on the fringes, rather than the more commercial artists and products, who retain connection to music as a cultural practice and therefore push the development of new styles.

Perhaps the bigger question isn’t how musicians will compete against AI, but how we as a society should value the musicians who help create our musical worlds, and our very cultures.

Is this a task we’re happy to hand over to AI to save money? Or should such an important role be supported with job security and a fair wage, as is afforded to doctors, dentists, politicians and teachers?

Art for art’s sake

There’s another much more fundamental reason why AI will not spell the end of human-made music. That’s because, as most musicians will tell you, making music feels good. It doesn’t always matter if it’s going to be sold, recorded, or even heard.

Consider mountain climbing as an example. Although we now have chair lifts, gondolas, funiculars, helicopters, planes, trains and cars to take people to the top, people still love climbing mountains for the mental and physical benefits.

Similarly, playing music is a unique experience with benefits that extend far beyond making money. Ever since our ancestors first tapped rocks together in caves, music has connected us to others and to ourselves.

The health benefits are overwhelming (just look at the amount of evidence relating to choirs). The neurological benefits are also astounding, with no other activity lighting up as many parts of the brain.

No matter how good computers get at making music, active music engagement will always remain an important way to regulate our mood and nervous system.

Also, if our relationships with organic foods, vinyl records and sustainable fashion is anything to go by, we can assume there will always be a group of conscious consumers willing to pay more for human-made music.

AI as an opportunity

Further, while AI will likely disrupt the music industry as we know it, it also has amazing potential for boosting creative freedom for new generations of artists.

It may soften the separation between “musician” and “non-musician”, arguably allowing more people access to all the associated wellbeing benefits of music-making.

There’s also enormous potential for music education, since students could use AI to explore all aspects of the musical process in one classroom.

In a health context, personalised songs and albums could have significant implications for music therapy by letting therapists create tracks tailored to their clients’ needs. For instance, a therapist might want to produce a song a client has no prior association with, to avoid music-related triggers during therapy.

AI-assisted music is already being used in psychedelic therapy to create, curate and personalise people’s journeys.

Over the past 100 years, we’ve seen several innovations revolutionise the way we interact with music. AI ought to be understood as the next step in this process. And while change brings uncertainty, it also offers hope.

Alexander Crooke does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. No, AI doesn’t mean human-made music is doomed. Here’s why – https://theconversation.com/no-ai-doesnt-mean-human-made-music-is-doomed-heres-why-230865

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

Peter Dutton has taken a further controversial step in his climate change policy, indicating a Coalition government would only announce its medium term emission reduction targets after the election.

Dutton on Tuesday reaffirmed the opposition was committed to the net zero by 2050 target, and emphasised it had no intention of withdrawing from the Paris Climate Agreement.

But Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said “no 2020 target means  walking out of the Paris agreement. That is very clear.”

Recommitting to the 2050 target, Dutton told a news conference: “In terms of the targets otherwise, we’ll make those decisions when we’re in government.

“We are not going to do things that hurt Australians. […] We’ll look at the prevailing economic conditions after the next election, and we’ll make announcements in due course.” He said the progress to the 2050 target did not need to be linear.

Australia already has a 2030 target under the Paris agreement – set by the Albanese government – of reducing emissions by 43% (on 2005 levels). It has to submit a target for 2035 early next year.

Dutton last week said Australia’s 2030 target was unachievable, in  comments that prompted speculation that a Coalition government would seek to leave the Paris agreement. While scotching that, Dutton’s latest remarks put more doubt over what would be the Coalition’s policy.

Liberal, moderate senator Andrew Bragg danced around the issue when questioned on Sky about Dutton’s position. “Most people who look at this closely will look for two key points. Are you in Paris? And are you in for net zero 2050? And the answer to both questions is yes. The rest is noise,” Bragg said. He also said, “what we do for 2040 and the other years in between 2050 – that will be announced, I’m sure, before the election”.

Albanese said Dutton’s position would leave Australia standing with Libya, Yemen and Iran. “That is not the company that Australia should want to keep.

“We know that the consequences of that for our relationships in our region and around the world with our closest allies will be ones that are regrettable, to say the least.”

Pointing to Bragg’s rather different position, Albanese said it was clear there hadn’t been any proper process to determine the Coalition’s policy. He said instead of chasing new investment in new industries  with new opportunities and new jobs, Dutton was chasing them away. “Peter Dutton is afraid of the future,  and therefore he cannot seize the opportunities  which are there.”

The teal MPs continue to seize on Dutton’s hardening climate position to attack him.

Kylea Tink, MP for North Sydney, said Dutton’s plan to ditch Australia’s current 2030 target “is bordering on criminal”.

“The dangerous captain’s call […] would see a Coalition government effectively pull Australia out of the Paris Climate Agreement.

“Peter Dutton’s promise to renege on Australia’s 2030 climate targets is anti-science, anti-jobs and anti-climate action.

“Reneging on our 2030 target will leave Australia a pariah on the international stage, and will result in higher energy bills for Australian families and businesses, the loss of thousands of future-ready jobs, threaten our economy and ultimately lead to higher climate pollution,” Tink said.

Dutton was dismissive of the teals. “Some of the teals – Monique Ryan and Sophie Scamps – they will vote with Labor because they’re Greens, they’re not teals,” he said.

The Australian Industry Group on Tuesday cast doubt on whether the 2030 target would be met.

“We have supported Australia’s interim emissions targets as a guide path and glide path to meeting the global Paris Agreement goal to limit further climate change,” Ai’s CEO Innes Willox said.

“Australia’s current 2030 target is in the balance – we are tracking in broadly the right direction and we have the tools to get it done, but it’s looking more unlikely that Australia will build the new assets we need fast enough to meet the full 43% by 2030,” Willox said.

Tasmanian federal Liberal to bail out at election

Dutton has suffered a blow in Tasmania. Differences between the Liberals’ two Tasmanian federal MPs have ended with one, Gavin Pearce, the member for Braddon, carrying through his threat not to recontest his seat.

Last year Pearce was reported as telling colleagues he was withholding his nomination for the seat to force the party to block Bridget Archer from recontesting the adjoining seat of Bass.

Archer, a prominent and outspoken moderate, has been critical of a number of opposition positions and has frequently crossed the floor. But Dutton has given her licence, not wanting to risk her defecting to the crossbench.

Pearce said in a statement he had decided not to recontest “following much deliberation and consideration”. He made no mention of his political differences with Archer. Pearce has held Braddon since 2019. The seat is on an 8% margin and he received a substantial positive swing in 2022.

Meanwhile the Sydney Morning Herald reports New South Wales senator Hollie Hughes has lashed out at shadow treasurer Angus Taylor, blaming him for her loss in the recent Senate preselection, when she failed to secure a winnable place on the ticket.

Taylor, from the conservative faction, provided a reference for conservative candidate Jessica Collins. Andrew Bragg, a moderate, will head the ticket and Collins has a winnable spot.

“This is a message to colleagues that some people’s ambition is more focused on themselves rather than the betterment of the team,” Hughes said.

Premier Li Qiang’s arrives in Australia this weekend

Chinese Premier Li Qiang will visit Australia from Saturday to Tuesday, in the first visit by a Chinese premier since 2017.

Prime Minister Albanese and Premier Li will hold the Annual Leaders’ Meeting in Canberra; Premier Li will also go to Adelaide and Perth. The visit will include Albanese and Li meeting with Australian and Chinese business leaders, and a community event to mark the contribution of the more than one million members of the Chinese-Australian community.

Albanese visited China late last year.

Asked at his news conference what his message to Li would be about incidents involving the Australian military in the South China Sea and elsewhere, Albanese said the message would be that they were “inappropriate”. He said Li would be “very aware of Australia’s position, which is that Australia was engaged in legitimate international activity.”

Late last year, the Chinese used sonar against Australian navy divers. This year, flares were deployed in the path of an Australian navy helicopter.

Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Dutton won’t announce medium term emissions targets before election – Albanese says that’s walking out of Paris – https://theconversation.com/dutton-wont-announce-medium-term-emissions-targets-before-election-albanese-says-thats-walking-out-of-paris-232153

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Matt McDonald, Professor of International Relations, The University of Queensland

Opposition leader Peter Dutton on Tuesday reiterated the Coalition’s support for the Paris climate agreement, following suggestions he might walk away from the deal. But he fuelled speculation the Coalition plans to scrap Australia’s current 2030 emissions target and confirmed he won’t annouce the Coalition’s proposed target before the election.

Dutton’s comments follow days of confusion about where the Coalition stands on Australia’s emissions reduction goals. Nationals MPs Barnaby Joyce and Keith Pitt reportedly want the Coalition to withdraw from the Paris climate agreement. And over the weekend, Dutton said the Albanese government “just have no hope of achieving the [2030] targets and there’s no sense signing up to targets you don’t have any prospect of achieving”.

Speaking on Tuesday, Dutton said of the Coalition’s climate policy:

we’re not going to send the economy into freefall, and families bankrupt, through an ideologically based approach, which is what Anthony Albanese is doing at the moment.

So what would happen if a Dutton government weakened Australia’s 2030 targets – a 43% cut on 2005 levels – or if the Coalition’s more conservative elements succeeded and the Coalition abandoned Australia’s Paris commitment altogether?

At this stage, it’s virtually impossible to imagine Australia walking away from the Paris deal. But even watering down our 2030 targets would have significant diplomatic and economic repercussions. Either way, climate policy is looming as a major issue heading into the next election.

The 2030 targets must stay

Let’s say a Coalition government decided to drop Australia’s 2030 targets, but remain signed up to the Paris agreement, and the broader goal of reaching net-zero emissions by 2050.

This would technically be possible. However, it is clearly inconsistent with the spirit of the Paris agreement, which asks that nations ratchet-up their emissions reduction commitments over time.

And abandoning the 2030 goal would make it incredibly difficult, if not impossible, for Australia to reach net-zero by 2050. As others have noted, the 43% target target already falls short of what is needed for Australia to do its share on emissions reduction under the Paris Agreement, and is less ambitious than the targets adopted by our international peers.

This brings us to Coalition suggestions that Australia has no prospect of meeting the 43% target, and so should not be signed up to it. This is a ridiculous argument.

First, the 43% target is not unachievable. The latest forecasts suggest Australia is on track to cutting emissions by 42% by 2030.

Emissions targets signal that a government is working towards something. They encourage aspiration and action. They incentivise investment in some areas – such as renewable energy – and disincentivise investment elsewhere, such as in fossil fuels. A target’s legitimacy isn’t determined by whether it is wholly met.

Having said that, the Coalition’s line of attack should be a wake-up call to the Albanese government to make sure the 43% target is achieved.

What about nuclear?

The Coalition’s climate and energy policy hinges, controversially, on the introduction of a nuclear power industry in Australia.

Nationals leader David Littleproud on Monday said the Coalition remains committed to the goal of net-zero by 2050, but most emissions reduction would occur towards the end of that period when nuclear power is up and running. He said the Coalition would have interim targets out to 2050 “but we won’t have a linear pathway” to net-zero.

The idea that nuclear could be part of the solution to Australia’s energy transition is nonsense. Evidence abounds to support this, including a report by the CSIRO last month which found a nuclear plant would cost at least A$8.6 billion, and electricity from nuclear power in Australia would be at least 50% more expensive than solar and wind.

Establishing a nuclear energy capacity in Australia would be prohibitively expensive and just not feasible. What’s more, the long-term economic costs would be huge. Not least are the eye-watering costs of dealing with the effects of climate change should the world, including Australia, not reduce emissions dramatically.

Australia on the global stage

Increasingly around the world, nations that fail to act on climate change risk being penalised economically in the form of carbon tariffs. There are taxes applied to imports, according to the volume of greenhouse gas emissions released in their production.

The policy is designed to ensure manufacturers operating in nations with strict emissions policies in place, such as a carbon price, are not undercut by manufacturers in higher-emitting countries. The European Union introduced such a policy in 2023. The US is also considering a version of the policy.

Australian exporters risk significant economic costs if our federal government does not adopt a serious emissions reduction strategy.

Then there is the question of Australia’s international reputation. Stepping back on climate change goals does not align with the image we have of ourselves: as a good international citizen that helps advance responses to challenging transnational problems.

More directly, it would badly undermine Australia’s relationships with its Pacific neighbours, for whom climate change is an existential threat – perhaps even pushing those countries closer to China.

The results of the next presidential election in the United States, however, pose a danger. There, conservatives have reportedly drafted a plan for a future Trump administration to leave the Paris agreement, as it did in 2020.

If a major global power, and Australia’s biggest ally, withdraws from the deal, it may provide cover for a future Australian government to do the same.

The climate wars continue

From a domestic political point of view, it’s unclear what the Coalition hopes to achieve by raising the prospect of a walk-back on climate action. Such a policy would, for example, make it acutely difficult for the Coalition to win back teal seats it lost at the last election.

A recent Lowy poll found 57% of Australians think global warming “is a serious and pressing problem and that we should begin taking steps now, even if it involves significant costs”.

Following the last election, hopes were high that Australia’s frustrating climate wars may be over. The results suggested the Coalition’s only pathway back to power would have to involve a legitimate climate policy. The Coalition’s latest rhetoric suggests it does not agree.

Matt McDonald has received funding from the Australian Research Council and the UK’s Economic and Social Research Council

– ref. Peter Dutton’s latest salvo on Australia’s emissions suggests our climate wars are far from over – https://theconversation.com/peter-duttons-latest-salvo-on-australias-emissions-suggests-our-climate-wars-are-far-from-over-232144

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Matt McDonald, Professor of International Relations, The University of Queensland

Opposition leader Peter Dutton on Tuesday reiterated the Coalition’s support for the Paris climate agreement, following suggestions he might walk away from the deal. But he fuelled speculation the Coalition plans to scrap Australia’s current 2030 emissions target and confirmed he won’t annouce the Coalition’s proposed target before the election.

Dutton’s comments follow days of confusion about where the Coalition stands on Australia’s emissions reduction goals. Nationals MPs Barnaby Joyce and Keith Pitt reportedly want the Coalition to withdraw from the Paris climate agreement. And over the weekend, Dutton said the Albanese government “just have no hope of achieving the [2030] targets and there’s no sense signing up to targets you don’t have any prospect of achieving”.

Speaking on Tuesday, Dutton said of the Coalition’s climate policy:

we’re not going to send the economy into freefall, and families bankrupt, through an ideologically based approach, which is what Anthony Albanese is doing at the moment.

So what would happen if a Dutton government weakened Australia’s 2030 targets – a 43% cut on 2005 levels – or if the Coalition’s more conservative elements succeeded and the Coalition abandoned Australia’s Paris commitment altogether?

At this stage, it’s virtually impossible to imagine Australia walking away from the Paris deal. But even watering down our 2030 targets would have significant diplomatic and economic repercussions. Either way, climate policy is looming as a major issue heading into the next election.

The 2030 targets must stay

Let’s say a Coalition government decided to drop Australia’s 2030 targets, but remain signed up to the Paris agreement, and the broader goal of reaching net-zero emissions by 2050.

This would technically be possible. However, it is clearly inconsistent with the spirit of the Paris agreement, which asks that nations ratchet-up their emissions reduction commitments over time.

And abandoning the 2030 goal would make it incredibly difficult, if not impossible, for Australia to reach net-zero by 2050. As others have noted, the 43% target target already falls short of what is needed for Australia to do its share on emissions reduction under the Paris Agreement, and is less ambitious than the targets adopted by our international peers.

This brings us to Coalition suggestions that Australia has no prospect of meeting the 43% target, and so should not be signed up to it. This is a ridiculous argument.

First, the 43% target is not unachievable. The latest forecasts suggest Australia is on track to cutting emissions by 42% by 2030.

Emissions targets signal that a government is working towards something. They encourage aspiration and action. They incentivise investment in some areas – such as renewable energy – and disincentivise investment elsewhere, such as in fossil fuels. A target’s legitimacy isn’t determined by whether it is wholly met.

Having said that, the Coalition’s line of attack should be a wake-up call to the Albanese government to make sure the 43% target is achieved.

What about nuclear?

The Coalition’s climate and energy policy hinges, controversially, on the introduction of a nuclear power industry in Australia.

Nationals leader David Littleproud on Monday said the Coalition remains committed to the goal of net-zero by 2050, but most emissions reduction would occur towards the end of that period when nuclear power is up and running. He said the Coalition would have interim targets out to 2050 “but we won’t have a linear pathway” to net-zero.

The idea that nuclear could be part of the solution to Australia’s energy transition is nonsense. Evidence abounds to support this, including a report by the CSIRO last month which found a nuclear plant would cost at least A$8.6 billion, and electricity from nuclear power in Australia would be at least 50% more expensive than solar and wind.

Establishing a nuclear energy capacity in Australia would be prohibitively expensive and just not feasible. What’s more, the long-term economic costs would be huge. Not least are the eye-watering costs of dealing with the effects of climate change should the world, including Australia, not reduce emissions dramatically.

Australia on the global stage

Increasingly around the world, nations that fail to act on climate change risk being penalised economically in the form of carbon tariffs. There are taxes applied to imports, according to the volume of greenhouse gas emissions released in their production.

The policy is designed to ensure manufacturers operating in nations with strict emissions policies in place, such as a carbon price, are not undercut by manufacturers in higher-emitting countries. The European Union introduced such a policy in 2023. The US is also considering a version of the policy.

Australian exporters risk significant economic costs if our federal government does not adopt a serious emissions reduction strategy.

Then there is the question of Australia’s international reputation. Stepping back on climate change goals does not align with the image we have of ourselves: as a good international citizen that helps advance responses to challenging transnational problems.

More directly, it would badly undermine Australia’s relationships with its Pacific neighbours, for whom climate change is an existential threat – perhaps even pushing those countries closer to China.

The results of the next presidential election in the United States, however, pose a danger. There, conservatives have reportedly drafted a plan for a future Trump administration to leave the Paris agreement, as it did in 2020.

If a major global power, and Australia’s biggest ally, withdraws from the deal, it may provide cover for a future Australian government to do the same.

The climate wars continue

From a domestic political point of view, it’s unclear what the Coalition hopes to achieve by raising the prospect of a walk-back on climate action. Such a policy would, for example, make it acutely difficult for the Coalition to win back teal seats it lost at the last election.

A recent Lowy poll found 57% of Australians think global warming “is a serious and pressing problem and that we should begin taking steps now, even if it involves significant costs”.

Following the last election, hopes were high that Australia’s frustrating climate wars may be over. The results suggested the Coalition’s only pathway back to power would have to involve a legitimate climate policy. The Coalition’s latest rhetoric suggests it does not agree.

Matt McDonald has received funding from the Australian Research Council and the UK’s Economic and Social Research Council

– ref. Peter Dutton’s latest salvo on Australia’s emission goals suggests our climate wars are far from over – https://theconversation.com/peter-duttons-latest-salvo-on-australias-emission-goals-suggests-our-climate-wars-are-far-from-over-232144

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Park Thaichon, Associate Professor of Marketing, University of Southern Queensland

The main purpose of negotiation is to find a mutually acceptable solution for buyers and sellers. Good negotiations greatly improve relationships between buyers, sellers and agents. They also help avoid future problems and conflicts.

Negotiating skills become even more important for home buyers in a “seller’s market”, where demand from buyers exceeds supply from sellers. That’s currently the case in all Australian capital cities and major regional cities such as Gold Coast, Sunshine Coast and others.

Many home buyers mistakenly believe negotiation only occurs during the signing of the sale contract. However, it involves distinct stages: pre-negotiation and during negotiation.

So how can people maximise their chances of successfully negotiating a purchase in a seller’s market? I offer the following tips.

Be someone the seller’s agent wants to do business with

Buyers often communicate solely with the seller’s agent, rather than directly with the seller. It’s crucial to ensure the agent views the buyer positively. Ultimately, it’s the agent who presents offers to the seller for their decision.

It’s important, then, to understand what might motivate the seller’s agent to choose your offer. The key performance indicator for the agent often revolves around closing a property sale at a reasonable price within a certain time.

This means price is a crucial factor. However, other factors can influence the seller’s agent and seller.

For example, having pre-approved finance can increase the agent’s confidence in the buyer. If the buyer appears serious, can make quick decisions and makes a good impression, the agent may be more motivated to push for them, even if their offer is slightly lower than others without pre-approved finance.

Be a big fish (for the seller’s agent)

The next strategy is to give the seller’s agent extra incentive to favour you and your offer. Our research in customer behaviour suggests businesses value customers who make frequent purchases or engage them for long-term services.

For example, the agent would be pleased to learn that the buyer might be interested in buying another property in the near future or in using their rental service for the new property. You have an advantage if you can position yourself as someone who could provide them with extra business.

Point to competing options

In a positive manner, let the seller’s agent know you are considering two or three properties, and this specific property is among those you are inclined to make an offer on.

In certain situations, it may stimulate competitive pricing when multiple properties of similar quality are available in the same area. Make it clear to the agent you will choose the property that offers you the best overall value.

While this strategy might not necessarily lower the price in a seller’s market, it can prompt the agent to have a fuller discussion with you.

Think beyond price

The next set of tips focuses on the during negotiation stages. It can be challenging for buyers to negotiate a lower price in a market with low supply and high demand. You might have to “think outside the price box”.

Buyers often have a specific price range or fixed budget in mind when they start discussions with a seller. However, other factors besides price can influence a property’s overall value.

So if a seller won’t adjust the price, consider negotiating for other concessions that could reduce your expenses.

These may include:

Settlement period

Consider the expenses associated with the settlement period. A shorter settlement period could enable buyers to move into the property sooner and save on rent. For example, if a buyer is paying $600 per week in rent, an early settlement could save them around $2,400 per month.

Insurance costs after contract signing

In many states, buyers’ home insurance cover is required to begin from the date of contract signing. It’s reasonable for buyers to include a special condition requesting the seller to bear the insurance costs until settlement. On average, home insurance may amount to about $140 per month.

Cleaning expenses

Consider negotiating a condition stipulating that the seller must ensure the property is professionally cleaned by settlement. Failure to do so could result in a $500 adjustment in the buyer’s favour at settlement.

In some states, like Queensland, sellers are not obligated to deliver a clean property. Based on typical end-of-lease cleaning charges, internal cleaning of a four-bedroom property could cost $455 to $590.

Building and pest inspection costs

Buyers should always include a 14-day pre-purchase inspection clause for building and pest inspections in their offer. Although they may cost $300 to $600, these inspections provide a clear report that could lead to negotiations after contract signing if they find any issues with the property.

Be careful with your first offer

Don’t present the first offer in writing. It can be challenging to negotiate down the price once it has been written in an offer document.

Instead, the buyer should begin by testing the expected price of the property. As well as obtaining property reports from multiple banks, the buyer could talk with the seller’s agent in person about a price range that would be agreeable to the seller.

You could include phrases like “a price that will make the seller happy” or “a price that will make the seller accept the offer”. While the agent might not provide a specific price, this talk can provide a guideline for the buyer. All properties up for auction or private sale should have an expected price set, which may or may not be discussed with potential buyers.

It’s also advisable to consult a solicitor before submitting an offer or signing a contract. They can offer valuable suggestions to smooth the purchase process and identify any issues.

Use the power of 900

Buyers often submit offers with round numbers, such as $700,000 or $750,000. In a competitive seller’s market, aim to submit an offer with a number that stands out from the rest, yet remains within your budget.

An example of such a number is $900. For instance, comparing $700,000 to $700,900, the extra $900 makes the offer feel closer to $710,000.

Write a personalised letter

It’s true the most important point of selling a house for many sellers is price. But they are human and have emotions. Finishing a purchasing offer with a personal letter to the seller can make a difference.

Often that $3,000 to $20,000 could be a lot of money for a buyer, but it may not be as much for someone selling a house for $700,000 or $1,000,000. Write the letter to express your feelings about the property in a way that makes it clear you will care for it. Most people selling their home would prefer to have someone look after it well.

Park Thaichon does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. How to buy a home: 7 tips for negotiating like a pro – https://theconversation.com/how-to-buy-a-home-7-tips-for-negotiating-like-a-pro-226237

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Simon Davies, Lecturer in Forensic Psychology, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington

“Boot camps” for young people who commit serious offending are coming back. The coalition government has promised to pilot “military-style academies” by the middle of the year – despite a wealth of international and New Zealand evidence that boot camps do not reduce reoffending.

It has been encouraging to see this evidence receive extensive media coverage and expert analysis. Less encouraging, however, has been the minister for children’s reported rejection of expert advice that the boot camp model is flawed and ineffective.

So, why do we keep returning to interventions that don’t work? For boot camps, there are at least three possible explanations.

First, they appeal to politicians who want to appear tough on crime, while also saying they are encouraging rehabilitation options.

Second, boot camps seem to have a strong appeal to common sense: people want to believe structure and military discipline can turn around young people’s lives, and this belief outweighs contradicting evidence.

Third, boot camps can take different forms, so evidence of their ineffectiveness can be avoided by claiming, as the minister has, that improvements will be made this time.

This seems unlikely, however, when the core features that characterise boot camps – strong discipline in particular – are a main reason they don’t work. To understand why, we need to look at the psychology of punishment and behaviour change.

The limits of punishment

As children, either through direct experience or observing others, we learn that if we touch a hot stove we get burned. People tend to assume punishment works in the same way: we change our behaviour following punishment.

In practice, and in the criminal justice system in particular, punishment rarely works that way.

It has long been argued that punishment which is immediate, certain and severe will deter crime. But most offending goes undetected initially, punishment is often delayed, and more severe sentences have not been shown to deter offending. Serious offending, in particular, appears not to be deterred by punishment.

Punishment also only tells someone what they should not do, not what they should be doing. In fact, punishment can have the opposite effect, leading to more of the behaviour you were trying to prevent. To learn new behaviours, young people need praise and encouragement.

When punishment meets trauma

Perhaps the main problem with the assumption that young people who offend seriously “just need some discipline” is that they have often already experienced more – and more severe – discipline than most. We might also call this “abuse”.

Recent New Zealand evidence found 95% of a sample of 63 young people involved in “ram raid” events had been exposed to family harm; 65% reported five or more such occasions.

Decades of research into the impacts of childhood maltreatment and trauma tell us these types of experiences have substantial effects on development. Children tend to develop a poor understanding of emotions, low self-value, problems forming healthy relationships, and hypervigilance to perceived threats.

When young people with these difficulties are subjected to harsh discipline in boot camps, they are likely to associate their treatment with the serious physical harm caused to them in the past, causing further anxiety and stress. Without healthy ways to manage those emotions, further disruptive behaviour, including aggression, is likely.

Just as young people tend to engage in behaviour (such as violence) shown to them by others, they also tend to adopt the attitudes of those around them. Often, these include negative views of society at large, particularly towards authority figures.

Because of the strong link between those attitudes and reoffending, interventions should focus on shifting those attitudes.

At best, however, research suggests boot camps have no impact on such attitudes. At worst, a focus on discipline may strengthen unhelpful attitudes and hinder the ability to form a therapeutic relationship.

A working therapeutic relationship is perhaps the single most important feature of effective interventions aimed at changing behaviour.

Focus on what we know works

Boot camps do not appear to be going away. They are seemingly popular with the public and will therefore likely remain popular with politicians.

But the evidence is clear: in the different forms tried to date, they do not reduce reoffending. Most likely, this is because of the limitations of punishment as a method of changing behaviour, and the backgrounds of the young people entering these camps.

That doesn’t mean these young people cannot be helped. There is good evidence that several different interventions – ones that have a therapeutic focus, involve relevant support people, and work on building skills for living “pro-socially” – can reduce reoffending and other antisocial behaviour.

Nor does it mean young people who seriously offend should be exempt from consequences. But we should be honest about the purpose and likely outcome of those consequences, and accept that punishment alone will not change behaviour.

One of the most telling findings from research into boot camps is that those with a rehabilitative component are more effective at reducing reoffending than other models. Some may cite this as evidence boot camps can be effective.

We disagree. If the reason some boot camps are effective is because they include a rehabilitative component, why bother with the boot camp aspect? Why not focus on what does work?

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Boot camps for young offenders are back – the psychological evidence they don’t work never went away – https://theconversation.com/boot-camps-for-young-offenders-are-back-the-psychological-evidence-they-dont-work-never-went-away-231262

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Peta Stapleton, Associate Professor in Psychology, Bond University

Our personalities are generally thought to consists of five primary factors: openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness and neuroticism, with each of us ranking low to high for each.

Those who rank high in extroversion, known as extroverts, typically focus on their external world. They tend to be more optimistic, recharge by socialising and enjoy social interaction.

On the other end of the spectrum, introverts are more likely to be quiet, deep thinkers, who recharge by being alone and learn by observing (but aren’t necessarily shy).

But what if you’re neither an introvert or extrovert – or you’re a bit of both? Another category might fit better: ambiverts. They’re the middle of the spectrum and are also called “social introverts”.

What exactly is an ambivert?

The term ambivert emerged in 1923. While it was not initially embraced as part of the introvert-extrovert spectrum, more recent research suggests ambiverts are a distinct category.

Ambiverts exhibit traits of both extroverts and introverts, adapting their behaviour based on the situation. It may be that they socialise well but need solitude and rest to recharge, and they intuitively know when to do this.

Ambiverts seems to have the following characteristics:

• good communication skills, as a listener and speaker
• ability to be a peacemaker if conflict occurs
• leadership and negotiation skills, especially in teams
• compassion and understanding for others.

Some research suggests ambiverts make up a significant portion of the population, with about two-thirds of people falling into this category.

What makes someone an ambivert?

Personality is thought to be 50% inherited, with the remaining being influenced by environmental factors and individual experiences.

Emerging research has found physical locations of genes on chromosomes closely aligned with extraversion-introversion traits.

So, chances are, if you are a blend of the two styles as an ambivert, one of your parents may be too.

What do ambiverts tend to be good at?

One area of research focus in recent decades has been personality type and job satisfaction. One study examined 340 introverts, extroverts and ambiverts in sales careers.

It has always been thought extraverts were more successful with sales. However, the author found ambiverts were more influential and successful.

They may have a sales advantage because of their ability to read the situation and modify their behaviour if they notice a customer is not interested, as they’re able to reflect and adapt.

Ambiverts stress less than introverts

Generally, people lower in extraversion have higher stress levels. One study found introverts experience more stress than both ambiverts and extraverts.

It may be that highly sensitive or introverted individuals are more susceptible to worry and stress due to being more perfectionistic.

Ambiverts are adept at knowing when to be outgoing and when to be reflective, showcasing a high degree of situational awareness. This may contribute to their overall wellbeing because of how they handle stress.

What do ambiverts tend to struggle with?

Ambiverts may overextend themselves attempting to conform or fit in with many social settings. This is termed “overadaptation” and may force ambiverts to feel uncomfortable and strained, ultimately resulting in stress or burnout.

But personality traits aren’t fixed

Regardless of where you sit on the scale of introversion through to extraversion, the reality is it may not be fixed. Different situations may be more comfortable for introverts to be social, and extroverts may be content with quieter moments.

And there are also four other key personality traits – openness to experience, conscientiousness, agreeableness and neuroticism – which we all possess in varying levels, and are expressed in different ways, alongside our levels of extroversion.

There is also evidence our personality traits can change throughout our life spans are indeed open to change.

Peta Stapleton does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Not quite an introvert or an extravert? Maybe you’re an ambivert – https://theconversation.com/not-quite-an-introvert-or-an-extravert-maybe-youre-an-ambivert-223344

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Gordon Noble, Research Director, Institute for Sustainable Futures, University of Technology Sydney

You might think government debt is bad, but it actually plays a crucial role in modern finance.

Back when he was treasurer, Peter Costello famously declared that April 21 2006 would be known as Australia’s “Debt Free Day”. On this day, he proclaimed, the Commonwealth would eliminate its net debt and “pay off the mortgage”.

The problem – as financial markets were quick to point out – was that government bonds (used to issue debt) were critical for all lending decisions in the Australian economy. A government that didn’t borrow at all would create different problems.

As Costello himself later reflected:

Government or sovereign bonds are the lifeblood of the financial system […] Although their primary purpose is to allow a government to borrow, trading in the bonds establishes the yield curve. It becomes the benchmark for other borrowers – state governments and institutions as well as the private sector.

The financial markets were unnerved at the prospect that there might be no Australian government securities on issue to underpin and price the debt market.

Instead of ceasing to issue bonds, the Australian government decided to use its surpluses to establish the Future Fund.

Leveraging debt for green goals

Almost 20 years later, Australian financial markets have reached a new milestone. Government debt is now being issued to drive bold action on the environment.

This month, the federal government issued Australia’s first sovereign green bond to back projects supporting the net-zero transition.

The A$7 billion bond issue was heavily over‑subscribed. More than $22 billion in bids came from 105 investor institutions across Australia, Asia, Europe and North America.

But it isn’t a new idea. The first green bond was issued by the World Bank in 2008, following interest from Swedish pension funds who wanted to support investments tackling climate change but had struggled to find projects.

This then led to a flurry of activity, including the 2009 founding of the Climate Bonds Initiative by Sean Kidney, an Australian expat who has been a driving force behind green bond markets globally.

As green bonds gained traction, the International Capital Markets Association established the Green Bond Principles to “support issuers in financing environmentally sound and sustainable projects that foster a net-zero emissions economy and protect the environment”.

In 2023, about A$1.4 trillion of impact bonds were issued globally, including green, social, sustainability and sustainability-linked bonds.

A watershed moment

Sustainable finance is now at a critical juncture. The World Bank says financial markets are transitioning to a more holistic approach to sustainability and disclosure:

The data and transparency that were the foundations of labelled bonds could become the norm market-wide, providing the insights necessary to understand the true environmental and social impact of investments on people and our planet.

Australia’s green sovereign bond is not itself that remarkable. Many green sovereign and corporate bonds have already been issued into what is now a fairly mature market.

But as sustainable finance moves further into the mainstream, using green treasury bonds to establish a “risk-free rate of return” could help integrate sustainability into all forms of lending.

The risk-free rate of return represents what an investor can expect to earn on an investment that theoretically carries zero risk. Government bonds are typically used as a proxy for zero risk, which is then translated by banks into the interest rates that households and businesses pay.

A typical business, for instance, will have an interest rate for borrowing that reflects the risk-free rate, plus a margin that reflects the bank’s assessment of the risk of lending to the business.

This is why green treasury bonds are important. They will set the risk-free rate of return that will flow through to all forms of green finance, ultimately making it easier for households and businesses to access finance that can accelerate progress towards a more sustainable economy and society.

Making all finance more sustainable

There are many further opportunities Australia could leverage in this space.

The government has already used the Affordable Housing Bond Aggregator – which issues long-term social and sustainability bonds – to provide cheap finance for social and affordable housing projects.

A similar mechanism could help local governments finance community infrastructure projects, such as sustainably retrofitting municipal swimming pools. Sustainable bonds could be further incorporated into housing finance options to help Australians sustainably retrofit their homes.

Green “asset-backed securities” are secured by green loans and can be used to finance the development of solar and battery industries at scale.

And there are also opportunities to build new nature-related financial markets, supporting farmers to make investments aligned with the government’s Nature Repair Market Act. This would centre on preparing for climate extremes, for example, by investing in water infrastructure.

To unlock these and other opportunities, the Australian government needs to move beyond issuing individual green bonds and support the establishment of markets. The Reserve Bank of Australia and Australian Prudential Regulation Authority can help drive regulatory settings to support this.

Issuing green treasury bonds addresses a major missing piece in the sustainable finance jigsaw. As climate risk is integrated into finance, the real opportunity lies in using a risk-free rate for green bonds to integrate sustainability into all forms of finance.

Gordon Noble has worked on research projects for the Institute for Sustainable Futures that have been funded through grants.

– ref. Investors have bid against each other to buy Australia’s first green bond. Here’s why that’s a great sign – tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/231807

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Zahra Stardust, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Centre of Excellence in Automated Decision-Making and Society, Queensland University of Technology

The Australian government has announced a A$6.5 million trial of “age assurance” technology to restrict minors’ access to pornography. It’s part of a $1 billion package to address gendered violence. And it now comes alongside a proposal to ban people under 16 from social media.

The government will consider various types of “age assurance” methods, such as matching drivers’ licences, credit cards or passports against government databases. It may also explore analysing biometric information (such as faces, fingerprints or voices), and profiling online behaviour (like username, browsing history and cookie data). Each has different privacy risks.

While the government refers to these tools as “age assurance”, many of them are more accurately called “age estimation”.

Published in Big Data and Society, our new study into one common facial age estimation tool shows such technologies are unreliable, and have a racial and gender bias.

They are also undesirable – they make pornography a political scapegoat for gendered violence and divert resources from evidence-based strategies that can actually help.

Framing pornography as the problem

The link between pornography and sexual violence is tenuous. In part, this is because existing research often conflates kink with violence and assumes porn causes misogyny.

Pornography is not a homogeneous category. It includes horror, comedy, romance and documentary, and porn creators are highly diverse.

Sexually explicit media can play a role in affirming bodies and desires of people excluded from mainstream media.

Despite this, various narratives are used to justify the increasing regulation of pornography. This includes construing porn as a public health crisis. The idea of “porn addiction” has also been shown to lack methodological rigour.

The idea to “face scan people watching porn” was first raised by then-Minister for Home Affairs Peter Dutton in 2019, the same year the government tried to introduce a national facial recognition scheme to match people’s identities across government agencies.

Furthermore, research into pornography consumption shows that young adults are media literate, critical consumers. Pornography can be a source of arousal, laughter, bonding or stress relief.

The technical limits of age estimation

Civil society groups have cited privacy and feasibility concerns about age estimation tech. These include:

• accessibility issues for people without identity documents
• the potential burden on small, low-income websites
• queries about what data could be collected, sold or exploited
• and the likelihood of circumvention.

In the eSafety Commission’s own research, young people “expressed their right to safe, autonomous sexual development and exploration”. They were concerned age assurance is of limited efficacy, and comes with privacy and security issues.

Age estimation software that uses facial recognition relies on stereotypical indicators of age, such as hair, wrinkles and jawlines. These are highly variable – for example, wrinkles can be altered by cosmetics or injectables.

Studies also indicate that facial recognition software often has a significant racial and gender bias.

In our research, our colleague Abdul Obeid used a neural network to analyse a data set of 10,139 images. He found the model was most accurate in estimating age in the “Caucasian” category and least accurate in the “African” category.

Boys were more likely to be misclassified than girls, especially in the 0–12 age bracket. People aged 26 and over were generally misclassified as younger, sometimes by as much as 40 years.

Age estimation is already a fraught task when done by humans, who regularly misjudge age. It is no better when done by machines.

Supporting healthy sexual development

Overall, age-based restrictions on access are unlikely to stop people from viewing porn. Teenagers can easily avoid age verification and may even get around age checks using the dark web, putting them at greater risk of encountering child abuse images.

Young people often think about harm very differently from their parents. Sometimes, blurry understandings of “harm” from the media and angry responses from parents bother young people more than the actual porn they encounter.

The best approach to supporting healthy sexual development for young people is to “talk soon, talk often” with them about sex, especially if they can do so openly with trusted adults.

Part of healthy sexual development is understanding how sexual representations are shaped through media and culture. Porn literacy – a subset of media literacy – is about reading porn well rather than taking an abstinence-based approach.

Evidence-based alternatives

Restricted-access approaches make a crude distinction between people over or under 18. But the various age groups under 18 have very different needs in relation to sex and relationships. Importantly, this includes 16- to 17-year-olds who can legally consent to sex.

For pre-pubescents, the biggest risk factor involving pornography is when adults use these materials to commit sexual assault. This shows governments must invest in community-led prevention and frontline services.

Meanwhile, post-pubescents need comprehensive sex and relationship education appropriate for their development. Its focus should be on providing the information they actually want, including about consent, communication, gender diversity, non-monogamy, sexual experimentation and sexual autonomy.

Instead of barring under-18s from all porn, a more impactful approach would be to facilitate access to diverse sexual representations. This includes measures such as preventing media monopolies from dominating the pornography market and supporting worker-owned platform cooperatives to flourish. It includes ending financial discrimination against sex workers and decriminalising porn production.

Importantly, addressing gendered violence requires actioning the recommendations of First Nations women, who remain the most affected by family, police and carceral violence.

Age estimation for pornography access is not an easy fix for gendered violence. It will not support young people to contextualise the sexual media they come across. It will not address structural factors behind gendered homicide and sexual violence, including racism and misogyny. In reality, it will only introduce more problems, and at great cost – political and financial.

Zahra Stardust receives funding from the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Automated Decision-Making and Society as part of a project on Big Data and Sexual Surveillance. She is also the recipient of a grant from Forte, the Swedish Research Council for Health and Working Life on Digital Sexual Health: Designing for Safety, Pleasure and Wellbeing in LGBTQ+ Communities, and unrestricted Google Asia Pacific grant on AI generated intimate imagery. She is an individual member of Scarlet Alliance, Australian Sex Workers Association.

Alan McKee receives funding from the Australian Research Council. He is a member of the Society of Australian Sexologists.

– ref. Age verification for pornography access? Our research shows it fails on many levels – tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/229614

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nikki-Anne Wilson, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Neuroscience Research Australia (NeuRA), UNSW Sydney

What’s the difference? is a new editorial product that explains the similarities and differences between commonly confused health and medical terms, and why they matter.

Changes in thinking and memory as we age can occur for a variety of reasons. These changes are not always cause for concern. But when they begin to disrupt daily life, it could indicate the first signs of dementia.

Another term that can crop up when we’re talking about dementia is Alzheimer’s disease, or Alzheimer’s for short.

So what’s the difference?

What is dementia?

Dementia is an umbrella term used to describe a range of syndromes that result in changes in memory, thinking and/or behaviour due to degeneration in the brain.

To meet the criteria for dementia these changes must be sufficiently pronounced to interfere with usual activities and are present in at least two different aspects of thinking or memory.

For example, someone might have trouble remembering to pay bills and become lost in previously familiar areas.

It’s less-well known that dementia can also occur in children. This is due to progressive brain damage associated with more than 100 rare genetic disorders. This can result in similar cognitive changes as we see in adults.

So what’s Alzheimer’s then?

Alzheimer’s is the most common type of dementia, accounting for about 60-80% of cases.

So it’s not surprising many people use the terms dementia and Alzheimer’s interchangeably.

Changes in memory are the most common sign of Alzheimer’s and it’s what the public most often associates with it. For instance, someone with Alzheimer’s may have trouble recalling recent events or keeping track of what day or month it is.

We still don’t know exactly what causes Alzheimer’s. However, we do know it is associated with a build-up in the brain of two types of protein called amyloid-β and tau.

While we all have some amyloid-β, when too much builds up in the brain it clumps together, forming plaques in the spaces between cells. These plaques cause damage (inflammation) to surrounding brain cells and leads to disruption in tau. Tau forms part of the structure of brain cells but in Alzheimer’s tau proteins become “tangled”. This is toxic to the cells, causing them to die. A feedback loop is then thought to occur, triggering production of more amyloid-β and more abnormal tau, perpetuating damage to brain cells.

Alzheimer’s can also occur with other forms of dementia, such as vascular dementia. This combination is the most common example of a mixed dementia.

Vascular dementia

The second most common type of dementia is vascular dementia. This results from disrupted blood flow to the brain.

Because the changes in blood flow can occur throughout the brain, signs of vascular dementia can be more varied than the memory changes typically seen in Alzheimer’s.

For example, vascular dementia may present as general confusion, slowed thinking, or difficulty organising thoughts and actions.

Your risk of vascular dementia is greater if you have heart disease or high blood pressure.

Frontotemporal dementia

Some people may not realise that dementia can also affect behaviour and/or language. We see this in different forms of frontotemporal dementia.

The behavioural variant of frontotemporal dementia is the second most common form (after Alzheimer’s disease) of younger onset dementia (dementia in people under 65).

People living with this may have difficulties in interpreting and appropriately responding to social situations. For example, they may make uncharacteristically rude or offensive comments or invade people’s personal space.

Semantic dementia is also a type of frontotemporal dementia and results in difficulty with understanding the meaning of words and naming everyday objects.

Dementia with Lewy bodies

Dementia with Lewy bodies results from dysregulation of a different type of protein known as α-synuclein. We often see this in people with Parkinson’s disease.

So people with this type of dementia may have altered movement, such as a stooped posture, shuffling walk, and changes in handwriting. Other symptoms include changes in alertness, visual hallucinations and significant disruption to sleep.

Do I have dementia and if so, which type?

If you or someone close to you is concerned, the first thing to do is to speak to your GP. They will likely ask you some questions about your medical history and what changes you have noticed.

Sometimes it might not be clear if you have dementia when you first speak to your doctor. They may suggest you watch for changes or they may refer you to a specialist for further tests.

There is no single test to clearly show if you have dementia, or the type of dementia. A diagnosis comes after multiple tests, including brain scans, tests of memory and thinking, and consideration of how these changes impact your daily life.

Not knowing what is happening can be a challenging time so it is important to speak to someone about how you are feeling or to reach out to support services.

Dementia is diverse

As well as the different forms of dementia, everyone experiences dementia in different ways. For example, the speed dementia progresses varies a lot from person to person. Some people will continue to live well with dementia for some time while others may decline more quickly.

There is still significant stigma surrounding dementia. So by learning more about the various types of dementia and understanding differences in how dementia progresses we can all do our part to create a more dementia-friendly community.

The National Dementia Helpline (1800 100 500) provides information and support for people living with dementia and their carers. To learn more about dementia, you can take this free online course.

Nikki-Anne Wilson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. What’s the difference between Alzheimer’s and dementia? – tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/225271

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mark Gibbs, Lead – Pilot Deployments Program (AIMS); Professor (Queensland University of Technology; Adjunct), Australian Institute of Marine Science

The fourth global coral bleaching event is underway. It won’t be the last.

Even if we reduce the greenhouse gas emissions driving climate change, excess heat will remain in the ocean.

I believe high-income nations such as Australia have a moral responsibility to help coral reefs build resilience to heat stress, wherever they are in the world. That includes making sure these methods are accessible to everyone.

High-income nations are largely responsible for climate change. They are also better equipped and resourced to manage adverse events on coral reefs. Australian scientists are leading research and development in this area, selecting heat-tolerant corals for intensive breeding programs in aquaculture facilities. These corals are then planted back into the wild, building reef resilience.

What is driving mass coral bleaching?

Greenhouse emissions are building up in the atmosphere, trapping more of the Sun’s heat before it can radiate back into space.

Globally, oceans are warming and the rate of warming is increasing, with serious consequences for marine life.

Heat stress is widely acknowledged as the biggest threat to coral reefs worldwide. One of the main symptoms is coral bleaching, which can lead to mass mortality events.

Unfortunately, there is now so much heat in the oceans that coral reefs will continue to suffer heat stress for decades even if global emissions cease.

Efforts to reduce carbon emissions have been too slow to avoid damage to coral reefs. But every fraction of a degree matters.

We need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as fast as possible to “flatten the curve” of exponential heat stress. The survival of the world’s coral reefs depend on it.

Why are low-income nations more dependent on coral reefs?

Coral reefs support entire communities in low-income nations. Many people rely on the reef for food and income, from fishing and tourism.

Even in high-income nations such as Australia, remote Indigenous coastal communities rely on coral reefs. The reef is an essential part of their culture and way of life.

Reefs also offer coastal protection for low-lying communities, dampening wave energy. Many of these communities cannot afford to build and maintain large-scale coastal protection infrastructure such as sea walls. They are also unable to relocate to higher land.

Why do we need to help coral reefs?

Coral reefs are found in more than 100 countries around the world. They are hotspots of biodiversity. While they cover less than 1% of the seafloor, they support at least 25% of all marine species.

Climate change is killing corals and eroding the capacity of these reef systems to provide essential ecosystem services.

Mass coral bleaching is also driving social inequality because low-income nations often rely on coral reefs for their food and livelihoods. But high-income nations have the greatest capacity to intervene and potentially improve reef resilience.

Countries such as Australia and the United States are increasingly investing in coral reef restoration projects, while low-income nations are mostly unable to do so without assistance.

That’s why high-income nations have a duty to intervene. We must develop ways to improve reef resilience and facilitate the application of these approaches across low-income nations and First Nations communities.

The effort required should not be underestimated. Developing ways to improve regional reef resilience is an enormous challenge.

These new approaches must be made available to communities with the greatest need. Protecting and restoring remote coral reefs could make all the difference, ensuring the future of coral reefs.

How can we help reefs in low-income nations?

Many coral reef restoration projects are underway across the world’s tropics. These are small in scale and not designed to halt large-scale biodiversity loss from mass bleaching events. A global review of restoration methods found most focused on rearing and transplanting fast-growing branching corals.

High-income nations such as Australia are pioneering methods to produce and deploy large numbers of young corals that are more heat-resistant.

These new approaches draw on industrial mass production techniques such as those used in large-scale aquaculture operations. Applying process engineering principles such as lean manufacturing and adaptive supply chain management dramatically increases the rate of coral production.

After identifying naturally-occurring heat-tolerant corals in the wild, we have been propogating these varieties in aquaculture facilities. Then we put their offspring back on the same reefs to improve tolerance to bleaching events.

These processes are being developed in programs such as Australia’s Reef Restoration and Adaptation Program and the United Nations’ Coral Research & Development Accelerator Platform program.

Reef managers can then focus on maintaining crucial source reefs that supply neighbouring reefs through natural larval dispersal. During major spawning events these corals produce millions of eggs and sperm. The fertilised eggs are then transported on ocean currents to settle and grow on other reefs.

Coral restoration capacity building

These new approaches to coral restoration are similar to successful evidence-based conservation programs on land, for the recovery of threatened animal populations.

The main challenge now is how to implement these approaches in low-income nations. But this challenge is nothing new. Many development and aid programs face struggle to translate methods developed in high-income nations to low-income nations.

Successful implementation requires careful consideration of the methods and equipment required. Low-income nations and communities can be early adopters of new technology as long as it is reliable and user-friendly. If solutions are not fit for purpose, we risk “ecological imperialism”.

Coral restoration capacity building requires significant time and investment. But this investment is crucial for the survival of the worlds’ coral reefs.

Professor Mark Gibbs works for the Australian Institute of Marine Science, a publicly funded research agency that receives funding from the Australian government, state government departments, foundations and private industry. Professor Gibbs holds adjunct positions at the Queensland University of Technology, Griffith University and James Cook University and serves on the board of a number of relevant organizations including Reef Check Australia, The Moreton Bay Foundation and the Gold Coast Waterways Authority.

– ref. We have a moral responsibility to help low-income nations restore coral reefs – tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/228998

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Shaun Eaves, Senior Lecturer in Physical Geography, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington

Recent assessments suggest the ocean current known as Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) is slowing down, with collapse a real possibility this century.

The AMOC is a globally important current in the Atlantic Ocean, where surface water moves northward as part of the Gulf Stream and transports warm water towards the Arctic. There it cools and sinks to return southward as a deep ocean current.

Collapse of the AMOC would have a devastating effect on climate in Europe. Temperatures in the UK and Scandinavia could drop by 5–15°C in a matter of decades.

However, because Earth’s climate system is interconnected, these impacts could have a global reach. Our new research shows past changes in AMOC have had significant impact on temperatures in New Zealand and across the southern hemisphere. These results imply that future collapse of AMOC may accelerate ongoing warming trends.

Lessons from the past

Between 20,000 and 10,000 years ago, Earth transitioned from peak ice-age conditions to a climate more like today’s. This interval featured rising global temperatures, melting ice sheets and climbing sea levels – all phenomena associated with present-day climate change.

Evidence from ice cores in Greenland and marine sediments in the North Atlantic suggests this natural warming event featured several abrupt changes associated with AMOC variability.

Using this interval as a natural experiment, we have undertaken research to learn more about how AMOC variability can affect climate in New Zealand.

To reconstruct how air temperature changed in New Zealand, we examined the past extent of mountain glaciers using evidence preserved in the landscape. Glaciers grow and shrink primarily in response to changing air temperature, which affects the annual balance of snowfall and snow or ice melt. As glaciers change in size, they deposit moraines (rock debris) in the landscape, which can persist for tens of thousands of years.

We combined these land-based observations with reconstructions of sea-surface temperature in the Tasman Sea, which we derived from microfossils (smaller than one millimetre in size) known as foraminifera. These microfossils come in a wide range of species and each has a preferred water temperature.

We quantified changes in foraminifera species in a core of marine sediment to trace how local temperature in the Tasman Sea has varied through time.

Global climate connections

Our results show that changes in air and sea-surface temperature followed a similar pattern in the New Zealand region as Earth warmed following the last ice age.

Warming began in both air and sea at about 18,000 years ago, followed by a cooling event at about 14,500 years ago – the Antarctic Cold Reversal. The timing of these changes matches past changes in the AMOC, as recorded in geological climate records from the North Atlantic region.

We examined computer simulations to test the physical connection between changes in the AMOC and New Zealand’s climate. These simulations used a physics-based climate model that captures atmospheric and ocean circulation and their interaction.

The model simulations support our geological evidence, showing air and sea surface temperatures in New Zealand respond sensitively to changes in AMOC intensity. When the AMOC weakens and Europe cools, New Zealand and the southern mid-latitudes undergo warming, and vice versa.

The models also indicate changes in the AMOC are transported rapidly, within decades, to New Zealand via shifting global wind systems. Changes in the AMOC disrupt the temperature gradient between the hemispheres, which is a key control on the strength of westerly wind belts in the southern hemisphere, between the latitudes of 40°S and 60°S where New Zealand is.

The westerly winds are important for New Zealand’s climate. They control the path of atmospheric storms and regional ocean currents.

Stronger winds over New Zealand bring regional cooling, as more storms track over the country and warm ocean currents are diverted away from the Tasman Sea into the south Pacific. In contrast, when the AMOC weakens, New Zealand has clearer skies and the Tasman Sea receives more tropical water masses, causing regional warming.

Future implications

Scientists have identified several “tipping points” in Earth’s climate system that may be triggered by human-caused climate change. Once these thresholds are crossed, the consequences cannot be easily undone.

Climbing greenhouse gas concentrations have raised air temperatures in New Zealand, and globally, by about 1.1°C since the late 19th century. Projections suggest New Zealand may end this century 1°C to 3°C warmer than now. However, these estimates do not include the potential impacts of a future AMOC collapse.

Our insights from the recent geological past show this AMOC tipping point has global reach, and could accelerate future warming in New Zealand.

Shaun Eaves receives funding from Royal Society of New Zealand Marsden Fund.

Andrew Mackintosh received funding from the Australian Research Council.

Joel Pedro received funding from the Carlsberg Chrono-Climate project and from the Australian government.

Helen Bostock does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Weakening or collapse of a major Atlantic current has disrupted NZ’s climate in the past – and could do so again – tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/231266

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Arrow, Professor of History, Macquarie University

The Beatles began their first and only tour of Australia 60 years ago this week. It remains a landmark event in our social and cultural history.

The Beatles spent almost three weeks in Australia and New Zealand. Touching down in a wet and cold Sydney on Thursday June 11 1964, they played 32 concerts in eight cities: first Adelaide (where drummer Ringo Starr, suffering from tonsillitis and pharyngitis, was replaced by Jimmie Nicol), then Melbourne (with Starr again), Sydney, Wellington, Auckland, Dunedin, Christchurch and two final shows in Brisbane on June 29 and 30.

Charming and irreverent as they were, The Beatles themselves were only part of the reason the tour was so memorable.

It was the hordes of screaming fans who followed their every move that astonished onlookers.

The rise of Beatlemania

By 1964, Australian teenagers had access to a global youth culture. As the feminist author Anne Summers, then an Adelaide teenager, recalled in her memoir Ducks on the Pond:

It was rare for world-famous pop stars to come to Adelaide and unheard of for a group at the height of their celebrity.

That Australian teenagers had the opportunity to see The Beatles in person in 1964 was due to a stroke of luck for tour promoter Kenn Brodziak. In late 1963, Brodziak secured the then up-and-coming Beatles for a three-week tour of Australia at a bargain rate.

By the time the tour took place, the Beatles were the biggest band in the world.

Their popularity had skyrocketed throughout 1964. I Want To Hold Your Hand went to number one on the Australian charts in mid-January and the top six singles that year were all by The Beatles.

So when the band arrived here, Beatlemania was the predictable result: crowds of surging, screaming young people, who turned out in massive numbers wherever the Beatles appeared.

While the earliest rock ‘n’ roll fans (and even performers) in the late 1950s were often labelled juvenile delinquents, there were too many teenagers swept up in Beatlemania for them to be dismissed in the same way. The crowds became a spectacle in themselves.

‘A chanting mass of humanity’

Beatlemaniacs were loud and unruly. The Daily Telegraph reported:

50,000 screaming, chanting, struggling teenagers crowded outside Melbourne’s Southern Cross Hotel this afternoon to give the Beatles the wildest reception of their careers.

It was a similar story in Adelaide. The Advertiser described:

police, their arms locked together and forming a tight circle around the car carrying the Beatles, had to force a path through the surging, screaming crowd […] Police said they had never seen anything like it.

The crowds overwhelmed observers with their sheer size – a “solid, swaying, chanting mass of humanity”, according to The Age – and noise. The Daily Telegraph consulted an acoustics expert to conclude “Beatles fans scream like [a] jet in flight”.

Beatlemania was visible (and noisy) evidence of a growing teenage consumer market and the assimilation of rock music, dancing and youth culture into the leisure practices of middle-class youth. It was proof (if anyone still needed it) the youth market was highly developed and extremely lucrative.

The speed with which companies found a ready audience for Beatles merchandise (wigs, souvenirs, magazines) demonstrated the relative affluence of the youthful consumer in mid-1960s Australia. This market would continue to grow throughout the decade.

A new idea of youth

Perhaps the most remarkable characteristic of Beatlemania was its femaleness. While not all Beatles fans were girls, it was the crying, screaming girls who attracted the most media comment.

The Daily Telegraph described them this way:

It was the girls, the nymphets of 1964 in their uniform of black slacks and duffle coats and purple sweaters – who showed the orgiastic devotion due to the young men from the damp and foggy dead end of England […] the girls wept, screamed, grimaced, fainted, fell over, threw things, stamped, jumped and shouted […] [The Beatles] were the high priests of pop culture, taking due homage from a captive, hypnotised hysterical congregation.

The references to “nymphets” with their “orgiastic devotion” tells us many Australians thought these young women were transgressing the norms expected for their era. Young women in the early 1960s were still expected to be demure and responsible. Beatles fans were breaking these rules, and helping to rewrite the meanings of youth and gender in 1960s Australia.

Beatlemania was an expression of female desire. The Beatles were powerful objects of fantasy for many fans in a world where sexual mores were slowly changing but where women were still expected to police male desire, stopping young men from “going too far”. A fantasy relationship with a Beatle became a way for young women to dream about their ideal relationship.

Screaming, chasing a Beatle down the street: these were acts of rebellion and joy that prefigured the rise of women’s liberation, with its embrace of rebellious femininity.

Beatlemania reminds us that, even if women were not always behind the microphone or playing the guitar, they have been important to the history of rock ‘n’ roll music as fans and audience members.

Beatlemania marked the ascendancy of a new idea of youth: these young people weren’t mere replicas of their parents, but they were not juvenile delinquents, either. The Beatles tour drew young Australians more closely into a transnational youth culture, fostering the development of a distinctively Australian variant here.

Beatlemania also demonstrated the massed power of youth. By the end of the 1960s, many Australian teenagers were gathering on the streets to protest, rather than celebrate, and to make political demands, rather than to scream.

Michelle Arrow receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

– ref. ‘Screaming, chanting, struggling teenagers’: the enduring legacy of the Beatles tour of Australia, 60 years on – tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/227680